Forum:CT:Tweaking the FAN/GAN pages

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Tweaking the FAN/GAN pages

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus; no change will be made. Graestan(Talk) 00:11, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

I initially proposed this on the next AC meeting page, but Tope suggested that it go through a full CT instead, so here it is.

I see that a lot of people edit the GAN and FAN pages by clicking the section edit links next to the vote counts rather than edit links next to the article name. This makes it difficult to see which nomination has been edited in recent changes and watchlists, as the edit summary shows the vote count rather than the article name. I propose to remove the edit links next to the vote counts by creating those headers with HTML markup rather than wikicode, like this:

(0 ACs/0 Users/0 Total)

This leaves the vote count in the TOC to provide a quick overview of the page, but makes reading watchlists and recent changes easier by forcing users to use the edit link next to the article name.

Adopt above proposal

  1. Good idea.--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 19:03, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
  2. I forgot to vote for my own proposal. Duh. :P —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 19:04, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
  3. If adopted, would likely also be worth expanding to other areas with vote counts, like Quote of the Day and Requests for user rights. jSarek 21:13, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, on those two pages, I'd just as soon replace the "Support"/"Oppose"/"Comments"–type headers with plain bolded text, as there's no need for those in the TOC in the first place since the vote count is in the primary header. (In fact, I removed them from the TOC of WP:QOTD/IU a while back with {{TOClimit}}.) —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 21:25, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Sounds good. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 21:22, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
    A good idea. Jonjedigrandmaster Jedi symbol (We seed the stars) 21:27, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Good idea. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 21:33, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Why not? Xicer9Atgar(Combadge) 21:35, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
  7. TheAinMAP 22:14, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Nayayen—TALK 22:37, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Definitely useful, good common sense proposal. :) Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 16:47, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
  10. -- 1358 (Talk) 16:59, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
  11. —Tommy 9281 23:29, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
  12. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 16:52, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
  13. Not a big deal, but an improvement nonetheless. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 09:43, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
  14. It'd be nice to look at the FAN history and know which noms have been altered - it would obviously be easier if people just edited via the article title subheading, but this is an alternative. Trivial as it may be, within a few days everyone will have adjusted and FAN editing will be more streamlined; what's not to like? -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 22:40, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
  15. Though I think simply putting the vote count directly in the header -- for example, HK-47 (1 Inqs/3 Users/4 Total) as the first header on the FAN page -- is far simpler than screwing around with HTML, I could not be more opposed to voting against a minor streamlining of the process simply for the sake of being against change. Havac 07:15, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
    • That's the way it used to be, but then links from an article to its nomination never worked because the section header changed with every vote. jSarek 07:23, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
  16. We were all thinking it; Master Jonathan said it. Menkooroo 09:56, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
  17. Per the Ackster and Havac. Thefourdotelipsis 04:04, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Reject above proposal

  1. Meh. I've never had a problem with the way things are formatted currently, and I just don't really like the way this proposed outline looks. I'm perfectly content keeping the pages as they are. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:29, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
  2. No need to fix what isn't broken. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 00:54, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Per Tope and Tranner. I don't see the need. Grunny (talk) 00:56, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Epic meh, if I may. Chack Jadson (Talk) 00:57, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
  5. I'm on the fence and leaning heavily to the "why fix what works?" side. I mean, I can understand the reasoning behind the change, but it does seem rather trivial. Trak Nar Ramble on 04:17, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Per all above. CC7567 (talk) 04:42, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
  7. JangFett (Talk) 05:09, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
  8. I've never had a problem with the current format and I don't particularly like to change things that are currently working. Cylka-talk- 19:53, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
  9. After further consideration, per CC. Jonjedigrandmaster Jedi symbol (We seed the stars) 00:22, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
  10. As an Inquisitor, I feel that I really should be apart of this vote. That said, I am only slightly (again, slightly) against this. In all, I feel it would streamline things better in some regards, but I do not see the pressing need. I know that some of the other Inqs are very touchy about changes to the nomination page, but I agree that it simply may not be needed. I also do not necessarily care for more code on the pages for people to potentially mess up or stumble over. Maybe I'm wrong on this point. As for me, I try to check on my sporadic noms with daily regularity as I'm not on for hours at a time to stalk the RC for changes to WP:FAN. It really isn't that hard. That said, I do think this was a solid proposal, Master Jonathan, just maybe not the right timing for it. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 01:17, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
    • As uninvolved as I may be at the moment, it does dishearten me a little bit that people who actually think this would be a positive change are opposing it because it's not a vitally important, process-revolutionizing alteration. It would be folly to suggest this is anything of the sort, but when I was involved in the FAN process it certainly irked me, and Jonathan evidently felt it was enough of an issue to start this about. Looking at the voting pattern, I can't help thinking that people are supporting a side bereft of actual argument out of obsequious contrariness and inertia. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 20:47, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Per everyone. Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 08:03, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
  12. I'm perfectly OK with the way things are working now. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 13:07, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
  13. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 23:28, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
  14. I'm not huge on an idea that solves one problem while making another worse (see my comment below). Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith -Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!- 17:42, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

  • As usual, no new options without discussion here first, please. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 18:53, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • I see where you're coming from, but I recently finished by first FAN and noticed one particularly difficult part of the FAN/GAN nomination process that this proposal doesn't fix. Basically, when placing objections, or commenting about those objections after addressing them, you end up editing everyone's supports/objections/comments/etc., rather than a small subset (for example, if I'm addressing Tope's objections, the page I'm editing also includes CC's, Cylka's, Kasra's, Nayayen's, etc.) This can sloooooooooooooooooowwwwwww down computers, especially near the end of a FAN/GAN process when there are a LOT of objections that had previously been addressed. This idea isn't meant to fix this obviously, but kind of goes in the direction opposite to where fixing this might ever happen (removal of all edit links except the top of the FAN, as opposed to the introduction of many edit links at each user's objections). Is there any way that this issue of massive objection pages slowing computers down might also be addressed by this? Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith -Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!- 19:59, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
      • There are and have been, but none of them either have gathered traction or are well-liked. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 21:07, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
      • If you're talking about the lag in the edit box, that's an IE issue. Switching to Firefox solves that problem (I can even edit the entire 242 KB Luke Skywalker article with no lag at all), and you'll find that it's much better and faster than IE. I downloaded Firefox last fall just to try it and never went back. Try it, I think you'll like it. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 23:22, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
      • Jonathan you must have read all about the "spread the word" campaign :P. But yes, Firefox fixes the issue. IE freezes up for about 30 seconds after typing into the QOTD/IU page, but Firefox has barely noticable lag. Also much faster page loads, and the caching of text has saved <-(pun) me many times in the past. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 09:50, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
      • I remember something Mauser said in an earlier CT where IE lost out to Firefox and other browsers: "don't care about IE, let the people get normal browsers" :P Nayayen—TALK 10:36, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

(subpage discussion moved to Senate Hall)